THE world renowned political scientist and international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz once observed that “Denmark doesn’t matter.” Waltz meant no disrespect to the small but wealthy European nation. Rather, he was making the point that in the grand scheme of things, small states do not have the material capabilities needed to make a
difference at the level of the world order. In Waltz’s structural neo-realism, the dynamic of global politics is essentially driven by the logic of the balance of power. International politics are essentially about power struggles among the Great Powers. In Waltz’s structural and systemic level of analysis small states must ‘suck up’, that is, become a member or a friend of a Great Power alliance. Failure to do so would result in either being ignored, or kicked around.
There are three striking things about this disciplined but narrow perspective on the nature of international politics. Firstly, it is excessively grounded in an epistemology of violence where the world is rendered as the simple byproduct of the last Great War. Secondly, the theory lacks any agentic capacity, that is, the capacity for concrete agents (social classes, states, political leaders, workers etc.) to bring about change. And thirdly, this most influential theory of international politics leaves no room for small, weak, or developing states to play a meaningful role in the world.
Seen this way, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that Waltz’s theory is founded on a kind of neocolonial epistemology where the Darwinist logic of Kipling’s civilisational supremacy has been substituted by a kind of post-colonial infantalisation. In this worldview, the small state, and especially the small developing state, must simply act out the structurally prescribed role of the willing servant by such acts as voting to send coalition forces to Iraq or for some power driven humanitarian intervention. No independent judgment or action is expected.
This perspective is fundamentally flawed and small states such as Guyana are actually demonstrating the reasons why this is so. In contradistinction to the solipsistic world of Waltzian structural power, the Third World is not sitting around waiting for the next Kipling. It is veritably taking matters into its own hands, carving out destinies based on its own resources, its own histories, and its own ambitions.
What thinkers like Waltz simply do not appreciate is that small states can play meaningful roles based on the quality of their ideas and the strength of their leadership. Put differently, we might state that in addition to material capabilities, ideas and leadership are indeed real resources for change. In this vein Denmark does matter.
The case of the Guyana-Norway agreement immediately comes to mind, and this, in an age when rapid deforestation is a leading cause of greenhouse emission. In the traditional developmental model the economic value of forests is to be found in either (1) harvesting, that is, cutting down the forest for the trees, and (2) clearing the forest for alternative use such as ranching. The Economic Value to the Nation is accrued through employment, export earnings, and more broadly, an expanded base for the GDP. But there is a downside in the carbon emissions associated with deforestation. While there may be a high EVN, therefore, there is a tremendous cost to the world. The threat of global warming is real and the consequences are potentially catastrophic. Multilateral efforts towards mitigation of greenhouse gases and ultimately towards lowering the anthropogenic carbon footprint have been slow. These are so to speak – structural and systemic issues.
President Jagdeo and Prime Minister Stoltenberg have decisively stepped into the picture and produced an architecture that is both bold and innovative. For the first time in history, two sovereign states have signed an agreement where one state is compensating another for carbon services to the world. While the first payments are still to be made by Norway, it must be noted that new international arrangements usually take years to materialize. Given the complexity at hand here we should appreciate the progress that is being made.
The core elements of leadership here are as follows – (1) a small developing nation (in this case Guyana) has opted to defer instant gratification for long term sustainable development; (2) the Government of Guyana has succeeded in the pursuit of the twin objectives of national economic development and owning-up to its global environmental responsibility as a tropical forested country; (3)  the Government of Norway has assumed substantive responsibility for carbon mitigation by use of its own financial resources; (4) the Guyana-Norway agreement is in support of a total LCDS and, as such, serves as a model of how bilateral partnerships can lower the carbon footprint without compromising growth; (5) the development of innovative institutional arrangements for monitoring and verification, and for financial administration of funds through a third party (in this case the World Bank); (6) the active participation of the people of a developing country in the production of the development model through hundreds of consultation, and (7) by agreeing to work with each other for the ‘common heritage of mankind’, Norway and Guyana have shown that the days of Kipling may be numbered because, indeed, North-South partnerships can be the product of both self-interest and cosmopolitan internationalism.
More than anything else the Guyana-Norway agreement shows that it is quite possible for non-Great Powers to exercise leadership on the world stage. Norway has made a bold move, and so has Guyana. The real leadership potential here is that the model can be replicated in other North-South type partnerships. Waltz would probably brush this off as an agreement on development and the environment, not on security. And if it is not about security then, for him, it doesn’t matter. Yet, Waltz may want to recognize that the fastest growing approach to international security is actually human security, a perspective where development, the environment, and cooperation really do matter.   
Ideas and leadership do matter. Jagdeo and Stoltenberg have shown this to be the case. Both leaders have been appointed (with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia) by the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon to lead the way in financing for development.